[T]he two delegates from the Shenandoah Valley say they are conducting an investigation into Democrats’ ties to the Muslim American Society and Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center, both in Falls Church.

Dels. C. Todd Gilbert (Shenandoah) and C.L. “Clay” Athey Jr. (Warren) allege that the society and mosque have links to terrorism, even though federal officials have found no such connection.

The delegates have been trying to connect Kaine and other Democrats to prominent Muslim leaders affiliated with the organizations. On Friday, Gilbert and Athey released a photograph of Kaine speaking at a Muslim American Society dinner this spring.

The connection is simple: Kaine spoke to Muslims. Muslims are terrorists. Therefore, Kaine supports terrorism. It’s as plain as day.

Gilbert and Athey are attempting the same underpants gnome technique that attorney general Jerry Kilgore attempted in his campaign against Tim Kaine two years ago now. Kilgore accused Lt. Governor Kaine of being soft on gang crime and, by extension, soft on terrorism. Why? Because, he said, al-Qaeda is working with MS-13. Nevermind that there was no evidence at all of this — in fact, Kilgore’s campaign admitted that there was no evidence. But spokesman Tucker Martin explained, delightfully, that “there could be a connection we are not aware of.”

Gilbert and Athey are alleging some hilariously tenuous connections here. They have a photo of Del. Moran with an imam who heads up a megamosque that two September 11th hijackers attended a few times. Nevermind that the FBI and the presidential 9/11 Commission found that the mosque had nothing to do with September 11th, and nevermind that even if it did, that’s got nothing to do with Moran having his picture taken with the guy. Because, after all, there could be a connection we are not aware of.

Not content with just going after Moran and Kaine, the pair are accusing the entire DPVA leadership of “joining forces with a radical element of the Muslim faith for the sole purpose of filling the ballot box.” And it’s not just these two delegates launching this attack. They’ve done so with the support of House Speaker Bill Howell, who’s lent his staff to the cause. This is an effort of House Republicans, not two kooks.

Mark Rozell is quoted in the Post article explaining, lest there be any doubt, the ways in which this is utter foolishness:

The idea is such a stretch, so beyond the realm of believability, this just strikes most people as either ridiculous or just political desperation. The people doing this risk alienating a growing segment of the population and don’t really gain anything substantial in return.

So why would they do it? For starters, Athey and Gilbert are unchallenged this year, so they may feel that they can support their beleaguered colleagues by making an attack that would be the death knell of a competitive campaign. For them to launch such an enormously risky attack, house Republicans must have polling data that show the same thing that the DPVA’s polling data show: for the first time in decades, Democrats are at a six to eight point advantage in a generic poll. They’re feeling desperate. But neither of these are enough to justify the attack. The most important element is the echo chamber occupied by these and other far-right house Republicans. In their world, this is a totally logical attack. Their supporters will probably stand up and cheer, the same supporters who cheered for Rep. Virgil Goode’s similar blanket attack on Muslims. I doubt there were many people discouraging them from taking this tack.

Presumably this means it’s OK for Democrats to make similar accusations against Athey and Gilbert. This should be fun.

Could Del. Athey be funneling money to gangs to kill children?There could be a connection we are not aware of.

Could Del. Gilbert have participated in dog fights with Michael Vick?There could be a connection we are not aware of.

Could Del. Athey be complicit in the sale of arms to Iran in the 1980s?There could be a connection we are not aware of.

Could Del. Gilbert have supported Hitler in his rise to power?There could be a connection we are not aware of.

The conspiracy goes even further. Last year (volunteering for Judy Feder at a candidate forum for the 8th, 10th, and 11th Districts) I was at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center and saw with my own eyes none other than Rep. Tom Davis speaking to and being warmly received by the crowd. Could Davis have connections to terrorism we are not aware of?

I read the same article. I believe the point was that the Delegates found it, ah, unseemly, for some of their colleagues to be consorting with Muslims who had ties to supporters of terrorists (eg, Hamas, Hezbollah).

In defense of those Democrats, it’s very hard to find politically active Muslims without any ties to extremist organizations. Such is the nature of Islam and the duties (jihad) it imposes on its followers.

Where’d I get it? The part about Democrats hangin’ around with fans Hezbollah and Hamas fresh from a “Death to Israel” rally comes from the WaPo article yesterday.

The part about politcially active Muslims having an affinity for jihad is just common sense. Really though, Dems shouldn’t be so touchy about it. Whenever a building gets blown up in the West somewhere and Bush, Blair, Brown et al head off to the Sword of the Infidel Slayer Mosque to assure the peace-loving congregants we’re not angry with their beneficent religion, the imam or at least a couple of the money guys on the board (deacons? elders?) always wind up having ties to terrorists of some sort.

I’m sure the WH and the folks at 10 Downing to the best they can to vet ’em, but when you’re dealing with a bunch of cousin-marrying, misogynistic, party-like-it’s-799 folks whose history and culture suggests a, ahem, fractious relationship with democracy and modernity it’s tough to find people with no ties to the jihadis back home.

Tom, you’ve ignored a key fact, one that I explained here. To repeat myself:

“And it’s not just these two delegates launching this attack. They’ve done so with the support of House Speaker Bill Howell, who’s lent his staff to the cause. This is an effort of House Republicans, not two kooks.”

The Dar al-Hijrah mosque is run by an imam named Shaker Elsayed. This man is a well known Hamas supporter, and he regularly preaches violence against Israel and anyone who supports Israel.

Any American leader cozying up to that crowd of fundamentalist Muslims is cause for concern. These particular Muslims do not want to peacefully coexist with us. There’s no need to post any links regarding Elsayed or Dar al-Hijrah. A minute’s worth of googling will provide all the info anyone could want.

Here’s the apparent message from the left:

Politicians associated with extremist Muslims –> No big deal.
Politicians speaking at Bob Jones University –> The fabric of the Constitution is unraveling.

OK, let’s get this straight. According to the logic I am seeing employed in this thread, all Catholics are child molesters and all protestants are closet homosexuals. This kind of one bad imam equals all Virginia Muslims giving 10% of their paychecks to Hamas thinking is total bullshit. To believe otherwise leads to the kind of blanket vilification that makes a REAL strategy to combat terrorism impossible.

I realize that these are desperate times for the GOP, but I mean come on. Just how stupid do these folks think people are?

It’s ironic that a party which makes social morality a central part of its party platform is willing to make “bearing false witness” a central tool in its election arsenal. It’s a statement about just how degraded the GOP has become as a political party. If it had a record of achievement, it would be running on its record rather than engaging in fear-mongering and defamation.

Dan, who said anything at all about “all Virginia Muslims” on this thread? Smails didn’t; neither did I. In fact, I was quite clearly referring to one distinct group of Muslims led by one particular imam.

By the way, remember Kaine’s Omeish blunder — the guy who resigned after we all found out about his call for jihad? He’s on the board of this mega-mosque.

Sure, this wasn’t a statement about “ALL” Muslims, it wasn’t even a statement about just one or two Muslims.

An “investigation” turning up a couple weeks before what looks to be a bad election cycle for the GOP? I wonder what kind of new information has showed up in Speaker Howell’s office. Perhaps the idea came to him when he saw the most recent internal poll numbers?

If the GOP party actually had a record of achievement to run on — something that it was proud of — it would run on its record. It wouldn’t need to run on a platform of bearing false witness a couple weeks before an election.

Publius, I was combining yours and Smails comments. As for Smails maybe it’s comments like “it’s very hard to find politically active Muslims without any ties to extremist organizations. Such is the nature of Islam and the duties (jihad) it imposes on its followers.” Clearly he is suggesting that any Muslim who is politically active is a terrorist sympathizer, or worse. Whether or not he means political activists or the more basic definition of those who engage in politics (i.e. vote) it is a statement clearly based on misrepresentations of the facts and is therefore dangerously close to being racist. But, given your clouded mind you clearly didn’t see that.

Has it ever once occured to you 24%-ers that reflexively supporting this administration when NEARLY THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY doesn’t shows a detachment from reality? Or do you still honestly believe that blowing up Iranian children would be a better way to protect America than making sure terrorists can’t park a nuclear missile in Baltimore harbor?

Perhaps, Waldo, you should worry about cleaning your own house before starting in on ours.

After all, these guys may have made inappropriate comments, but Jonathan Mark (a self-described Democrat-ick!) has set up a whole website devoted to smearing a Muslim candidate.

James, this simply isn’t logical, for a few reasons.

The first is the notion that a random citizen is to be held to the same standards by Democrats as a pair of state elected officials are to be by Republicans. That is, of course, facially false.

The second is the idea that one mustn’t speak out against the opposing political parties so long as there are problems within one’s own party; that would spell the immediate end of all political discourse.

The third is the question of what you’d have me do. Let’s pretend for a moment that the statements by this particular citizen is on par with statements by two members of the General Assembly. Let’s likewise pretend that we agree that we should each do something about it. You can help to defeat your guys in the election. What do you propose that I do about Jonathan Mark’s statements? Vote him out of…what? Should I seek to silence him in some way? What action do you propose that I take?

Finally — though I must admit that I’m not familiar with anything that Jonathan Mark has said about whatever candidate that you’re referring to — I can’t see any reason why a candidate should be immune from criticism because of his religion.

But I am heartened to see that you agree that the statements of these yahoos “may” be inappropriate. It’s a start. :)

No, it didn’t take me long to call you out as a bigot. Let me also point out that the Pope is Catholic, the sky is blue and as of yet, pigs can’t fly. Good day.

Despite the fact that you make it so easy to respond by your being so absurdly stupid and small minded, Smalls, I am done responding to you from now on, or at least until you stop being too cowardly to use your real name or admit that you are really a parody of yourself. Now go run along and find some brown people to vilify.

Judge Smails, I don’t know if you are a racist, but it’s a safe bet that the delegates from Shenandoah and Warren are desperately hoping that Virginia voters are.

Fear, race-baiting, and hatred — playing off the emotions — are all reliable motivational and selling techniques: especially if you’re pushing goods that are damaged and compromised to begin with.

Maybe people will forget about the Abuser Fees and the intra-party bickering that has largely paralyzed the House of Delegates.

Obviously that’s what this is all about.

I also realize that politicians and “moral” are not words that are usually put together, but in my religion bearing false witness is commonly understood to be a sin. Perhaps the people in Warren and Shenandoah live by a different set of Commandments than the ones that most 9 and 10 year old learn about in Sunday school. But it shouldn’t take a divinity degree to understand that these kind of tactics are immoral and wrong and anti-Christian. The silence of their GOP colleagues is equally telling.

“In defense of those Democrats, it’s very hard to find politically active Muslims without any ties to extremist organizations. Such is the nature of Islam and the duties (jihad) it imposes on its followers.”

No, Dan is all right. The above quoted is all “class”, if you mean sarcasm.

I just find it odd (and more than a little humorous) that Dan claimed superiority of his beliefs based on the percentage of Americans who share them. Then he turned around and called Smails stupid.

But then, anybody who actually thinks that popularity of an idea equals moral and/or intellectual value probably doesn’t have a clue what I’m talking about. And Dan has shown himself to be lacking a clue.

JTERP — I’ve lost count… how many times have you repeated “bearing false witness” on this thread? We get the point. Instead of mindlessly repeating that phrase, perhaps you could point out exactly what/where the false testimony is?

Smails, Publius, your sarcasm detectors are obviously malfunctioning. The substance of my arguments still stand, but as for the tone, I was just messing with you. Really, I was lampooning the tone that Smails usually uses around here. I still think you are both bigots, though.

Well of course it’s bigotry. With a dash of fear mongering and Muslim-hatin’. It works for them.

Remember this is the Party of the Southern Strategy, Gay Hate, Immigrant Hate, and War Unending. Their customer base may be shrinking, but they can still count on about 30% of the voting public (hence the constant effort at voter suppression).

It only gets easier to manipulate the angry ignorant fools that cling to the husk of a Party that no longer stands for something hopeful and true. And it only gets easier to pick out the ringleaders that know better, yet continue to defend the indefensible.